How Orwellian Are We? TSA Supe Roger Grant Refused To Give Me Name Of TSA Worker Who Groped Me At JFK
He also threatened me with arrest just for asking for her first name (which she refused to provide me), and which was impossible to see, since she wore her ID badge upside down.

A good many TSA workers seem to wear their badges upside down -- I suspect, so they cannot be identified on blogs, as I identified the TSA's ThedalaMagee, and more recently, another LAX TSA gropenfrau, Tiffany Applewhite.

This is the text of my email to TSA press liason Nico Melendez, which details the disgusting actions of the TSA at JFK the other day, when Gregg and I were flying home.

The email asks for answers -- as well as names of those who think they're employed and empowered by the United States of Orwell.

Gregg and I were in New York attending the National Book Awards, not the al Qaeda Leadership Conference, and I'd had lunch with my book agent and my editor, a lovely Italian man whose name is decidedly notal-Zawahiri.

In other words, there was no reason whatsoever to search me -- to grope my breasts, graze my vagina, or touch me or my possessions in any way. But all of that was done to me, and Gregg was groped as well.

Let's be mindful that the government pension-seeking hamburger clerks the TSA hires couldn't find a terrorist if one crawled up their ass and whistled the al Qaeda theme song.

Any plots uncovered have been exposed by trained intelligence agents -- like Fred Humphries, the FBI agent who uncovered the Millennium bombing plot at LAX by noticing that a guy with a Montreal baptismal certificate had an Algerian accent.

SUBJECT: Nico, info needed for piece on TSA incident Nov 15 at JFK

Nico,
On Thursday, November 15, at around 2pm, I was going through Kennedy Airport, Terminal 2 (Delta), going to gate 27 for a Delta flight home to Los Angeles.

As usual, I was pulled out for more screening. (It is odd that I, like many large-breasted women am always chosen -- always by men at the metal detectors -- to go for further screening. Every time I fly.)

Of course, in this case, there was no reason to believe I was guilty of anything other than flying home to Los Angeles to feed my dog and go to bed.

The serious issue at hand here: The light-skinned black woman who screened me, last name "Moore," was wearing her photo ID upside down so her first name could not be read. After she ran her hands, most disgustingly, all over my body, grazing my labia and touching my breasts and inside my turtleneck on my bare skin, I told her I needed her first name. She refused to give it to me.

It seems to me that when a government worker is doing a contested activity like groping my body for "security" purposes, sans probable cause, or engaging in any search of me as a citizen, I am entitled to that person's full name and badge number. In fact, we should be entitled to any government worker's full name when we have any dealing with them -- as long as we are still a free country.

I am asking you to provide both the full name and badge number of agent Moore now for a piece I am writing about this event.

I also need to know if agents are required, for accountability to the public they are touching in their most private areas, to wear their identification so it is visible.

Does the public not have a right to know the name of the person they are being searched by, or have things become *that* Orwellian?

Furthermore, when I went over to agent Moore's supervisor, the supervisor, Mr. Grant, a light-skinned black man seated at a podium in the corner, also refused to give me his first name.

I could read his name on his badge -- Roger Grant -- as his badge was not upside-down.

When I told TSA supervisor Roger Grant I needed the first name of the woman (Moore) who'd searched my body, he refused to give it to me and told me he would call the police on me. He said this in concert with telling me to leave. This was upsetting, frightening, and extremely intimidating.

Is this truly TSA procedure? That when a citizen asks the name of the person who searched them, they are denied the name and then threatened with arrest?

I want you to give me Roger Grant's badge number, his job history with the TSA, and an explanation of whether his behavior of threatening me with arrest for asking for the name of the agent who searched me was in line with TSA procedure.

I asked Roger Grant for a complaint form and he refused to give me one. He said I could complain online

I want to know whether there will be any reprimand or punishment made of these two, and if not, why not.

I'd also like a complaint form since Grant refused to give me one.

Is this the America you want to live in?

Please answer all my questions in boldface, provide any additional information you might have that relates to this incident, and let me know when you can get back to me.

Comments

Hopefully you get somewhere with this, but I doubt they'll even take the time to respond to you. It would interfere with them doing nothing remotely useful all day. Plus they don't appreciate anyone questioning their behavior.

Posted by: BunnyGirl
at November 17, 2012 11:46 PM

Amy,

I called TSA a few weeks ago and asked about the "freeze" drills. They told me there is no such thing. I asked about testing drinks that were purchased in the "secure" area. The guy said that TSA has no authority beyond the checkpoint (again, no such thing). He said I shouldn't believe what I read on the internet. I told him I don't. I only believe video - and I saw video & could he explain the flying public's rights in such circumstances. No answer.

But, it's harder to ignore some one on the phone. I suggest calling. And, for what it's worth, if you ever call the IRS EVERYONE gives you their last name and employee ID number so you have it for reference. You can't get the same person twice, but you DO get to know exactly who they are.

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell
at November 18, 2012 7:12 AM

Thanks, Shannon -- and great point about the IRS.

If anybody has any text on this -- a requirement for government employees to tell you their identity -- please let me know.

I think you're on a list. Why has no intrepid reporter gotten a job at TSA and done an expose? TSA is targeting you, and I'll bet you're not the only one. Can you file a lawsuit forcing them to come clean about this?

Posted by: KateC
at November 18, 2012 9:13 AM

I wish somebody would, Kate.

And I would do much more than I do now (more activism) if I had the spare time, but right now I'm working seven days a week and Sunday night for the radio show (plus some other nights for prep). Book is due in May and a lot of it is science stuff that takes some time to write (to put it in common language).

There is no requirement that, for instance, if you call a government office, the person answering the phone give you their name. I was a federal employee, so if there WAS such a requirement, I ought to have been told :) That said, as a statistician, I wasn't exactly interacting with the public on a regular basis.

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell
at November 18, 2012 10:23 AM

Don't tell them you're writing about it. I agree you should be able to, but you need to be a bit sneaky. Also get the name of someone who ISN'T psycho, and say "Joe Nonpsycho was very professional and very helpful, but the woman who searched me really was unprofessional. I'd like to get her name so I can write a complaint. Also, I'd like to write a nice letter for Joe Nonpsycho".

I think the best approach is what you're doing. As far as I know, the courts have ruled that you don't have a right to fly, therefore choosing to fly indicates a consent to a search. It seems our only recourse is to do what we're already doing.

On an unrelated note, Amy, I am watching the worst example of parenting I've ever seen in my life right now. I'm at the YMCA right now, in the lobby. A little girl is determined to play air hockey. Her mommy doesn't want her to play because the Y has turned the machine off. So, the girl, Miranda, throws herself on the floor. And clings to the leg of the air hockey table.

Mommy counts to three. Miranda whines with ever count, but no go. Mommy makes a show of threatening to throw Miranda's straws out. Mommy takes noisy steps walking to the wastebasket to throw the straws out, whatever the straws are.

Mommy then offers money. EXCUSE ME???? Why are you trying to BRIBE your child to get her to behave???

Miranda whines pitifully.

Mommy then says that they can play the game later, but Miranda must come now.

Then Mommy FINALLY gets a clue. "Miranda, if you do not come by the time I count to five, I'm going to drag you out."

DING! DING! DING! Gold star, Mommy!

But like all of Mommy's previous threats, Mommy fails to deliver.

So, of course, Miranda eventually gets her way, and Mommy turns on the machine and they play air hockey.

Posted by: Patrick
at November 18, 2012 12:37 PM

Don't tell them you're writing about it.

This is HOW I get a response from Nico, who is a press liaison.

Telling him I am not writing about it means he will send me to the regular citizen complaint desk, which I see as a giant trash dumpster.

I would take this as far as it can go. Note the time and date, get as many names of the agent(s) who performed offense(s)against you, include their refusal to provide their name & that their badge was upside down,note the approximate location (section/gate, aisle, etc). I'd call and get an address, and sent a letter w/the above details. Start a page for those who have gone through the same thing. Strength in numbers!

Posted by: Abbie S.
at November 18, 2012 11:05 PM

Someone should start a web site to chronicle the abuse.

Posted by: MarkD
at November 19, 2012 4:26 AM

Dear MarkD,

There are many excellent websites chronicling TSA abuses. I recommend TSA News Blog at tsanewsblog.com.

Here we go again… TSA seems to be a frequent and a convenient subject on this blog. The writer’s language characterization towards TSA and our employees is offensive to say the least. Name calling, insults, the whole gamut...

In her latest screening incident, she’s angry because a supervisor wouldn’t give her the name of an officer who had just screened her. An officer who – by the way - by all accounts other than Ms. Alkon’s, did her job by the book. It is more likely that she wanted this information so she could post the officer’s name on her blog as she’s done before with other incidents. In fact, she named and publicly accused one of our officers of rape after a routine pat-down in an earlier allegation.

Ms. Alkon says all sorts of things in this post, but what Ms. Alkon doesn’t tell you is that from the moment she entered our checkpoint, she began making statements such as “TSA gets paid to molest passengers and touch their private areas.” Does that sound like somebody who wants to get through the checkpoint smoothly? No, it sounds like somebody who makes a living by agitating situations and writing about them.

Also missing in the details, Ms. Alkon wasn’t selected for a pat-down as she states in this post. She opted out of advanced imaging technology (body scanner). It’s acceptable to opt out, but the standard protocol when a passenger opts out is that they receive a pat-down, not a free pass through security. If you read Amy’s comments, she knows this. As Ms. Alkon continued to make a scene, the checkpoint supervisor stated he would have to call airport police if she did not cooperate with the screening process.

We understand that not everybody likes or agrees with TSA’s policies and procedures. Part of what makes this country great is that we can openly complain on blogs such as this one, but I think it’s only fair that the blogger in question should be fair and accurate about what they write about and also consider the privacy of the individuals involved. After all, these individuals are doing the job the way they’ve been trained to do it. They show up to work daily with the intent of protecting our Nation’s transportation network.

I can assure you of one thing, an infinitesimal number of our employees know of Ms. Alkon. I can also assure you that reoccurring allegations like hers seem to be more self perpetuated rather than based upon reality and do nothing but detract from the mission at hand.

“TSA gets paid to molest passengers and touch their private areas.” Does that sound like somebody who wants to get through the checkpoint smoothly?

No, it sounds like someone who wants to defend our constitutional rights.

You, Bob Burns, are terrible person. You take money in order to support the violation of our rights. Being a prostitute would be a far more noble profession. In that case, consenting adults remove their clothes in a consenting exchange.

Tell me why in the world there is a reason to search me?

I NEVER make the metal detector buzz, but often I don't even get to go through it.

And yes, I was selected for a SEARCH. I am selected just about every time I fly. Random? I doubt it. The fact that I choose not to go through scanners -- scanners that professors at UC have written papers about the dubious safety of -- does not mean I opt for the grope-down.

Furthermore, the thugs taking money for violating our rights that work for the TSA do a little intimidation number on me every time that I forgot to mention in the post. They tell me that they "don't have personnel" to watch my computer, iPad and other items that are out on the conveyer.

You are part of a framework that is not about catching terrorists -- Thedala Magee, Tiffany Applewhite...Moore, whose name I was denied in the most Orwellian manner...a woman allowed to grope my body sans probable cause...are these people highly trained intelligence officers? No, they are not. They're people who would be working other unskilled jobs if they weren't hired to provide security theater at the airport.

Any single commenter here smart enough to make it in the debating fray on my blog could smuggle contraband onto a plane. No, not through the cartoon security Jonathan Corbett and others have shown is a joke. (There was a TSA tester in Dallas who smuggled a gun through FIVE times without any of the hamburger clerks you have manning security noticing.)

This is not security -- it's obedience training for the American public so we will give up our rights like blinking sheep. It is odious that you earn a living supporting it. The TSA has not caught a single terrorist, and in fact, is unnecessary, now that our cockpit doors are reinforced and that we know that there's an Islamic game-changer: That terrorists are now willing and even eager to die.

There is no inaccuracy to what I write.

Furthermore, because I need to get on my flight, I cooperate with the thuggery at the airport -- the entirely unnecessary groping of my body when I'm probably recognized by the agents. (One woman at the Delta LAX terminal a few flights ago said so.) This is punitive, this groping of me and the groping of other Americans, and has nothing to do with finding terrorists.

And while you're crowing about free speech, let's note that Thedala Magee tried to yank $500,000 out of me for exercising mine. My lawyer, the wonderful Marc Randazza, showed that when somebody you do not want to have touching your body touches your sex parts in any other arena we call this rape. What do you call it?

You are helping people like Michael Chertoff get rich and you are helping erode our rights. You are doing an extremely shameful thing and I just wish you could not go to sleep nights for taking money for this, but it seems you have all the conscience of cement.

You got nothing against my Kamhameha? works everytime. Just be happy I did not use my Spirit Bomb!

Posted by: Super Saijan Goku
at November 20, 2012 8:27 AM

Sorry there was not enough money in my paid blogger budget to afford gramar education

Posted by: Super Saijan Goku
at November 20, 2012 8:29 AM

I just tried to leave a comment for bob at his TSA blog page, just in case for some reason if it doesn't get posted, I'll leave it here:

Bob, I just read your TSA blog post and partial discussions in the form of comment messages with Amy Alkon on her blog page. I am not sure why your dispute is becoming a public debate, it is clear that you both can resolve this in private, in a rational and mature way, but that is just my opinion. I have never seen a valid argument like this between a government employee and a US civilian before, I hope you can sort it out with Amy soon.

Take care.

Posted by: Danichi Vam Phyere
at November 20, 2012 8:33 AM

As the spouse of a TSA agent I have to say I don't know if YOU are a terrorist or not! Therefore please describe to me HOW you know what a terrorist does or not look like or what they do for a living? Enlighten me.

I do know the majority of agents are not there for the pleasure of patting you down. In fact, they are there doing what the public has demanded....safety while flying. If you have a better suggestion for security checks by all means let us know. I for one am sick and tired of self important people like you who publish only the things that go wrong, maybe the law of attraction is at work on you and you are getting what you put out!
I know of many TSA agents who are kind & courteous and truly trying to do a good job.

Posted by: Loretta
at November 20, 2012 8:36 AM

LOL you go, girl!!! Glad that Blogdad Bob felt so threatened that he was compelled to respond the way he did. Like it makes any difference. Like anyone with a modicum of critical thinking ability seriously respects anything he says.

@Loretta: while I am sure that it hurts your heart to see the profession your spouse has chosen reviled at every turn, there is a point that you are missing: that is, our response should be commensurate with the risk presented. So, in our collective minds, before we believe that being violated every time we attempt to fly is worth it, there had better be freakin' bombs going off all over the place: in security lines, in malls, in hotels, in clubs... you know, like a real threat? Neither your husband nor any one of his tens of thousands of comrades have ever - EVER - caught a terrorist. Nary a one. So while I am sure you and he both believe that he is doing a critically important safety job, you have been massively deceived. I hope for both of your sakes that he finds another line of work that does not entail him being despised by millions. That can take a toll on his health.

Hello Amy, This is a very dangerous world. We are blessed in this country if we are so protected that we are still able to feel that counter-terrorism measures are silly. The TSA makes sure that NOTHING dangerous goes onboard that aircraft with you. Aviation is a key target, and it is beyond reason to think that it would not be exploited without security. The US is set up with the tightest system in the world, and you should be proud of that. Most Americans are, and are smart enough to know that it is the non-events that are the true measure of success for our protocols. Stop picking on the officers.

Posted by: Cynthia
at November 20, 2012 9:17 AM

Like someone else above I commented over on the TSA Blog and will cross-post it here because I doubt my comment will see the light of day there:

"A small, but very important thing first.... They are TSA*AGENTS*. You do not have Officers, you have Agents. You are an Agency, that means you are Agents.

Then, Mrs. Alkon's claims are what they are and for whatever her reasons there is a serious question which you are evading.... are your Agents required to identify themselves upon request?

Actual real Law Enforcement Officers are required to identify themselves upon request. Last Name and Badge Number and most L.E.O.'s carry business cards with the same.

Federal Agents in the FBI and CIA are required to identify themselves upon request. Unless they are undercover, but then you wouldn't know and shouldn't suspect them of being FBI or CIA and therefore asking them to identify themselves.

So.... do your Agents have to identify upon request?

If not, why not?"

Posted by: Chip
at November 20, 2012 9:49 AM

Dear Loretta and Cynthia,

You are repeating the same myths that have been proven, by empirical evidence, to be false.

I have a few questions for you. I have asked them of every TSA apologist, in person and all over the web, for years now. They have never been answered. Will you answer them? Here goes:

In all the years of aviation, before 9/11, on 9/11, and after 9/11, until the Reign of Molestation was implemented -- which means until October 30, 2010 -- back when we were all just walking through metal detectors and not getting scanned and groped, why weren't planes being blown out of the sky left and right? Since, apparently, The Terrorists Are Everywhere?

If we're so at risk, why aren't you scanning and prodding people before they get to the airport? At the curb, in the parking garage, on the ramp leading up to the airport, on the highway leading to the ramp, in the streets? In other words, every time we leave the house? After all, can't be too careful.

What about the security line itself? You mean to tell me that all those people packed together like sardines aren't a target? Please explain.

Have you heard of Domodedovo? You do know that at that airport in Russia, an attacker simply detonated his vest in the concourse, before he ever got near the security line. Do you know this? Please explain how scanning and groping people in line prevents a Domodedovo.

Do you also know that most of the cargo -- still, to this day -- 60% in the U.S. -- still goes into the hold unscreened? This is a fact. How do you account for it? Why do you think that isn't a risk, but ordinary innocent passengers are? Please explain.

It is a fact that you are more at risk of drowning in your bathtub than of being killed in a terrorist attack in this country. Fact. Do you still take baths? If so, why aren't you afraid? How about driving? You do know that there are over 35,000 traffic fatalities in this country every year. How many 9/11s is that? Do you still drive? Why?

Is there any point at which you will say, "Enough"? Or will you acquiesce to everything the TSA or DHS comes up with, no matter what, as long as it assuages you (without evidence) that it's keeping you safe?

Finally, for the umpteenth time, there were no bombs brought on board on 9/11. That's not what happened. The planes themselves were commandeered, something that won 't happen again for two reasons and two reasons only: the cockpit doors have been secured, and passengers will no longer silently submit -- which is more than I can say for TSA apologists.

So, Amy, you offended Blogger Bob through your "language characterization" (whatever that is). The tone of this response is pretty nasty and sounds awfully personal. I think you got under Bob's skin.

Good for you.

Because, like Bob, I am offended.

I am offended that an agency so rife with pedophiles and petty thieves has the audacity to pretend that it's keeping Americans safe.

I'm offended that the official spokesman of that agency seems to think it's his job to mock the traveling public for bringing silly things onto planes with his regular faux-amazed recitation of how many chain saws the TSA has confiscated.

I am offended by the billions of dollars of contracts routed to well-placed friends.

I am offended by Bob's pals in Congress who know that this agency has grown out of control but are too craven to take a stand against TSA abuse for fear of looking "soft" on terror if another attack ever comes.

I am offended that the youngest, the oldest, and the least able among us are so often singled out for abuse at the hands of blue shirted gropers.

And most of all I am offended every time Bob and his ilk try to make the case that only by stripping the American people of their fundamental right to privacy can their freedom be guaranteed.

Don't stop what you are doing, because rigtht now I am offended at the whole damned enterprise.

Posted by: Phil Weber
at November 20, 2012 10:32 AM

Don't you know that it's Big Brother's job to be backwards? The real terrorists are the TSA.

Wearing their plastic badges upside down is only another way to express their ignorance without saying a word, and helps us identify the idiots.

Thanks for speaking the truth. The Syndicate left a comment on the TSA blog in your defense. We reminded them that people like you are growing in numbers.

" “TSA gets paid to molest passengers and touch their private areas.” Does that sound like somebody who wants to get through the checkpoint smoothly? No, it sounds like somebody who makes a living by agitating situations and writing about them."

It sounds like someone who is pissed at the TSA and exercising her first amendment right, since TSA is government.

It is not any sort of threat.

It is not any sort of statement that a "professional" force should react to.

Bob, your statement makes it sounds as though Amy's statement was a good reason for TSA to abuse her.

It was not.

Posted by: jerry
at November 20, 2012 11:38 AM

Amy,

I had never heard of your blog, but linked to it through Politico. I take it that you have a longstanding policy disagreement with the TSA.

If that's the case, I am the sort of person you should be trying to get on your side. I think that airline security is important, but am sensitive to civil liberties violations, hate the PATRIOT Act, etc.

But I'm turned off by your histrionic tone and gratuitous name-calling and bullying of employees that are just trying to do their jobs. Airport screening isn't the worst thing to happen to the republic, and getting screened is not the equivalent of sexual assault.

Also, what is your proposal for an alternative screening process? No security at all? Or something else?

Like a lot of other people, I find myself siding with the TSA in this debate not so much because I love the TSA, but because its critics are so unpleasant and over-the-top. If you're wondering why most of the public isn't with you on this, that may be the reason.

Posted by: Ryan
at November 20, 2012 12:35 PM

With all due respect, Ryan, because we've heard this argument a thousand times before, those of us who've been working on this issue for years have spent most of that time trying to engage TSA apologists by using logic, facts, statistical analysis, risk assessment, historical precedent, empirical evidence.

It doesn't work.

Leaving that aside, I find it telling that people who object to being assaulted at the airport -- sexually or otherwise -- which, yes, is happening, no matter how many people want to deny it -- are termed "histrionic" when they call an action by its name.

What should we say when a TSA agent gropes a woman's breasts, or smacks a man's testicles, or steals our money, or deliberately detains us so that we miss our flights, or bullies, harasses, and berates a child? What should we call it? Is it less "histrionic" if we call it "a little inconvenience"?

At this point, I don't care who doesn't believe what's going on. I don't care who's in denial. That's their problem. The facts speak for themselves. And all the propaganda in the world, by Bloghdad Bob or anybody else, doesn't change those facts.

Take a look at this post and the referenced Master List, and then tell me how "historionic" all these people are:

Again, we repeat for the umpteenth time: the same procedures that were in place for all the years before 9/11, on 9/11, and after 9/11 up until October 30, 2010 when the Reign of Molestation was implemented. To wit, walk-through metal detectors. No scanning. No groping. No touching of any kind. In all those years, planes weren't being blown out of the sky left and right.

Anyone who's so afraid of the infinitesimally small chance of a terrorist attack, who thinks A Terrorist Is Hiding Around Every Corner, should stay home cowering under the bed. Let the rest of us fly freely and live our lives in freedom and dignity. (But darn, staying home is more dangerous; more people are killed by household appliances in this country than by terrorism -- another pesky fact that won't convince anyone who wants to hang on to his/her fear.)

You are an extremely naive person but according to your post I'm sure you're part of the 33 per cent of Americans who said they'd have no problem with manual anal cavity searches which means inserting the fingers and sometimes the whole hand inside the anus, a practice used by police and in prisons. This is what the TSA is expanding to. Besides train stations, they have also expanded to the highways with the VIPR program. The question is, what next? Showing up at three am at your doorstep to grope your wife to make sure she's safe from terrorists? Only a zombie would not know of the expanding surveillance police state, the violations of reasonable search and seizure of the 4th amendment.

Posted by: Hanson
at November 20, 2012 1:17 PM

I think that if you and those of your ilk dropped the self-righteous tone and the references to things like "Reign of Molestation" and mandatory anal fisting -- which you must realize make you sound crazy to most people -- you might actually have a chance of affecting change. I think some of your arguments sound actually reasonable, but you make it very difficult for me to align myself with you.

Posted by: Ryan
at November 20, 2012 4:43 PM

Ryan (and a few others),

I keep putting forth metal detectors plus chemical/bomb sniffing dogs. Some airports have used food-sniffing dogs to prevent agricultural diseases from being imported, so this isn't exactly a stretch.

Dogs are more reliable, usually less objectionable, and work for far less (and they don't need to touch you to smell you!)

Anyway, I've written about this a few times.

So, there's one alternative :)

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell
at November 20, 2012 5:17 PM

Ryan, I repeat, we've tried that, for years. It doesn't work. People -- most people -- don't respond to reason. Don't respond to logic. Don't think with the rational part of their brains:

For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)

=================================================The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

Oh, and someone brought bombs being an issue. If bombs were effective and simple then the Lockerbie bombing would have been repeated multiple times between 21 December 1988 and 11 September 2001. That's 4647 days or 13 years. Where was the TSA in that time? There was one successful bombing that was done in Colombia and two unsuccessful attempts in that time. Doing some further research there have been less than 100 confirmed bomb attacks on airlines since commercial flying has started. I'll be generous and call the planned and actually attempted but were aborted bombings at 5000 in all of aviation history, just never caught by authorities. There are over 80,000 flights per day in the U.S. alone. Do I need to do math for you?

Oh come on people, lets be fair with our TSA supporting guests. The TSA might never have caught any terrorists, but they've caught plenty of petty thieves, busted a prostitution ring, found a few sex offenders and even some child pornographers........ Of course said malefactors were working for the TSA, but you know, baby steps.

Amy....all I can say is your need for personal attention serves no useful purpose. Name calling all TSA agents as pedophiles & sex offenders is beyond low class & uneducated. Even before my association with my spouse I flew many times across this great country of ours and did not encounter the level of drama you have, again I believe fully you get back that what you put out....so Girlfriend dial down your mouth at the airport and plan your time better for departures because I know you only speak of & about a few bad apples. Like yourself only the bad ones get put on tv.

Posted by: Loretta
at November 21, 2012 3:22 AM

i think this lady is great an she tells it like it is the truth your dynamite keep up the great work an dont let them nazis kill yur blog i luv ya babe wahoo

Posted by: richard banon
at November 21, 2012 3:27 AM

Grow up people, in this great nation
we need to concede the pat-down and
let these decorated officers grope us...
in the name of...er...Liberty!

Posted by: Yandosan
at November 21, 2012 6:48 AM

"Therefore please describe to me HOW you know what a terrorist does or not look like or what they do for a living?"

There's a wheelchair-bound guy I've seen repeatedly hand searched by TSA. Every inch of him is routinely patted down, and it happens a lot because he flies a lot. It's really disturbing to see him all hunched over in his chair so that the boys in blue can pat his back down. Of course, he can't clear the body scanner or the metal detector. So, every time he flies, he's subjected to this. You'd think that at some point, they'd figure out that this guy is not only incapable of but also not inclined to terrorism. His name is Jim Langevin. US House member Rep Jim Langevin. Rules are rules, though.

Posted by: Pablo
at November 21, 2012 8:47 AM

Hi Amy,

Did you miss me?

It was so nice of you to post this around Veterans' Day.

You realize the TSA workforce you so freely disrespect by calling them hamburger clerks, criminals, pedophiles, nazis, etc. is made up of some of the finest people in our country.

How about some facts, roughly 1 in 4 TSA employees are Veterans. Many have had careers in Law Enforcement pre-TSA. Many left other jobs to serve their country post-911 because they felt a need to step up and do something.

Many are the very people who put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms you claim are being taken away. They spilt their blood, watched friends die, underwent untold hardship, and you have the nerve to spit on them? Shame on you.

Yes, they have some bad apples, in a workforce of more than 50,000 it is going to happen. Are all Sesame Street employees gay pedophiles? I think not. Are all internet users the next Craig's List killer? I doubt it. Are all bloggers uninformed, loudmouth Alkon-esque tools? Nope.

You do realize many TSA personnel are on the frontlines of Hurricane Sandy providing aid to people in need, right? Or that they were there at Katrina? Or present in every other natural disaster of late. Working 12 hour days, seven days a week because they want to make a difference. They want to selflessly help their fellow Americans in need. They toil in silence, while you spout garbage.

Understand, for every supposed "bad act" by a TSA employee, there are likely countless "good acts" that go unnoticed. Finding children who are on Amber Alerts, pulling people out of car wrecks, performing CPR on people with medical conditions, and on and on it goes....

We know you have a bone to pick with TSA, but show some class.

To our Veterans and our TSA workforce, I thank you for your service. Just remember for every Amy, there are many others who respect what you do, and what you have to put up with. It can't be easy. Thank you.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 21, 2012 11:21 AM

Would you also have suggested people show respect for war veterans manning the concentration camps?

How about some facts, roughly 1 in 4 TSA employees are Veterans. Many have had careers in Law Enforcement pre-TSA. Many left other jobs to serve their country post-911 because they felt a need to step up and do something.

Thanks so much, Pablo, for posting the facts on that. I suspect TSA workers (they are not officers) are posting here.

Again, we catch terrorists, not by hiring unskilled workers to grope Americans at the airport but by having trained intelligence officers using actual intelligence and probable cause to stop plots.

Again, I give you the Millenium Bombing plot at LAX. Stopped because Thedala Magee felt up somebody's titties? No -- because FBI agent Fred Humphries noticed that a guy with a Montreal baptismal certificate had an Algerian accent.

9/11 was USED by our government to take away our civil liberties while pretending to be doing something about security and those government-adjacent like Michael Chertoff to make a buck off the taxpayers.

Husband and I were traveling through LAX, waiting for quite a while in the security line, when we were redirected up some stairs, down a hall, and through a metal detector, ONLY a metal detector. So while our group of mixed ages, races, and gender were metal scanned, they were still body scanning and grouping the other group, who were getting on the SAME planes as we were. TSA is a joke.

Posted by: ImTheNana
at November 21, 2012 8:10 PM

"Would you also have suggested people show respect for war veterans manning the concentration camps?"

Amy, Amy, Amy. So witty of you. About what I would expect from a woman who made her name by shouting manners advice on street corners. If you were a "real" journalist, you'd try to present things without bias. Your rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to hide the fact that you are wrong.

The quality of your work is right up there with the good old "Minnesota Rag" heyday of newspapers.

So again, you are back to your argument that the actions of a few stain the many and therefore all are unworthy of respect. That's some seriously weak reasoning there. Perhaps you should stop providing "advice" since you're unable to see more than your own distorted view of the world.

Woman up, and admit your wrong. Only then will people see your views as being worthy of consideration. Otherwise, they are just the ramblings of some nut who makes a living off of creating bogus stories for the sake of sensationalism. In other words, be the responsible journalist you claim to be.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 22, 2012 5:54 AM

"Bullsplat. They're largely unskilled workers."

Way to interject fact into the conversation Pablo. Too bad you don't understand what you posted. I've seen that and here's the problem with it:

First, TSA doesn't use the A, B or C scales. They start at D. When someone completes their trial period, they go to E.

Second, like all Federal agencies, this is "Base Pay". It does not include locality, premiums, COLA, incentives, etc. Locality alone in major metro areas can be nearly 30% on top of base.

So a Supervisor which is at the standard G level in say LA is probably earning more than $50,000 a year. That's not unskilled pay. That's pay above the national average income.

It's important to note, TSA also utilizes the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale, which makes it possible to draw some of the best and brightest out of the private sector to lead their field components. So there is upward mobility built in as well.

As far as training, they probably spend about 10% of their working hours dedicated to training. Show me somewhere else (public or private sector) that invests more time and money in improving the skills of its' workforce than they do. Frankly, it's unheard of. If you spend hundreds of hours a year improving your skills, you aren't an "unskilled worker". So by your definition, I would be willing to bet both you and Amy are more "unskilled workers" than those TSA people you are slamming.

I am confident neither of you spend that much time improving your craft. After all, it's clear to me that Amy has never even heard of the AP Stylebook based upon her writing skills.

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to provide you with a training tip there.... BTW, if you're gonna put up an argument, don't leave holes in it the size of aircraft carriers.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 22, 2012 6:26 AM

How Orwellian Are We?

So Orellian that TSA's Blogger Bob uses a taxpayer funded website, the TSA Blog, uses his taxpayer paid government job, on the taxpayers time to commit a personal attack on Amy Alkon.

Were this any job in the private sector TSA's Blogger Bob Burns would be fired immediately but I'm betting the rest of the TSA stooges will keep Burns around to continue the attacks on citizens of the United States.

TSA is a poor use for our tax dollars. The TSA is an even poorer use for those tax dollars.

Posted by: RB
at November 22, 2012 7:08 AM

The amount of money the government overpays the vagina gropers at airports has nothing to do with their skill level. (I'm commenting through my software, going back through the idiocy that the guy who calls himself "Knowing" - hilarious -- is posting.)

"Knowing" -- only an asshole who doesn't know he's an asshole calls himself something like that -- I keep waiting for some substance in your comments, but there are only petty attacks on me; nothing about why I'm wrong to stand up for the constitution; why the TSA workers are doing a valuable task; all the terrorists they've caught (zero, I believe is the exact number, for all the gazillions we've spent).

Oh, and as somebody pointed out, terrorists could easily attack a mall or the line of sheeple waiting to go get their balls and vaginas touched in the name of "security." Yet, they have not. And frankly, as my boyfriend said before, a mall cop is probably armed and more qualified than the TSA in defending his place of employment.

After all, it's clear to me that Amy has never even heard of the AP Stylebook based upon her writing skills. Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to provide you with a training tip there....

Oh, snap.

David Yontz, an amazing copyeditor and the editor-in-chief at Creators edits my column, which wins first place awards all the time -- two this year in the Southern California Journalism Awards. The previous year, I won honorable mention as one of four finalists for "Journalist of the Year."

When a guy has to tell you you need to get a copy of the AP Stylebook on a post about defending our Constitutional rights, it tells you how weak and small and unable to post a real argument he is.

The AP Stylebook comment is an apt one. The assumption, by the tiny man who calls himself "Knowing" (hilarious), is that one should never color outside the line, never question authority, and certainly never stand up for our constitutional rights in the face of hamburger clerks-turned-"security" workers looking forward to government pensions.

Guess what: Just like I challenge those who violate our rights, I break AP rules all the time. "OK" looks like crap on the page so I write "okay." I sometimes say "if" when "whether" is correct because that's how people talk -- saying "if," not "whether."

As Elmore Leonard says, "If proper usage gets in the way, it may sometimes have to go."

He also told me last week, "You have a nice can" -- a remark which also works for me.

My gosh Amy, I didn't know you had won a Pulitzer. HINT: That's the only prize standard in Journalism worth bragging about.

Perhaps he should edit your rants as well....

It's funny that you avoid addressing the facts I put down for you. Instead you go off about my AP Stylebook joke. HINT: You should understand the rules before you break them. But then that's what a "real" journalist would do.

Avoiding fact is not debating. Claiming you are protecting the constitution has no validity when you don't understand what is constitutional.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 22, 2012 10:07 AM

"The amount of money the government overpays the vagina gropers at airports has nothing to do with their skill level."

True, but then you avoided discussing the facts that I shared about their training. They also have programs with universities to aid their workforce in obtaining anything from an associates to a masters degree.

"nothing about why I'm wrong to stand up for the constitution; why the TSA workers are doing a valuable task; all the terrorists they've caught (zero, I believe is the exact number, for all the gazillions we've spent)."

You don't understand the constitution. I've already pointed that out. Yes, they provide a valuable task, they help keep commerce moving. Remember how many billions it cost to have the airports and airlines shut down for a few days after 911? It's not about your comfort. It's the responsibility of the FBI and the intelligence agencies to arrest terrorists, or do you not understand that? Their job is to provide security screening.

"Oh, and as somebody pointed out, terrorists could easily attack a mall or the line of sheeple waiting to go get their balls and vaginas touched in the name of "security." Yet, they have not."

But that would only shut down a mall. Why would a terrorist waste their time to have so little impact.

"And frankly, as my boyfriend said before, a mall cop is probably armed and more qualified than the TSA in defending his place of employment."

He's obviously a security expert just like you. Ever heard of Federal Air Marshals? They work for TSA also. Ever notice law enforcement personnel at the airport? It's their job to arrest people, the screeners are there to screen.

So I guess "Knowing" fits, because I seem to be the only one of us who "knows" what they are talking about. The other is spouting a lot of nonsense that has no basis in fact.

Got any more witty reparte?

Posted by: Knowing
at November 22, 2012 11:02 AM

"..."Oh, and as somebody pointed out, terrorists could easily attack a mall or the line of sheeple waiting to go get their balls and vaginas touched in the name of "security." Yet, they have not."

But that would only shut down a mall. Why would a terrorist waste their time to have so little impact."

That makes no sense. Blowing up a Mall, while physically is a local event, would be more disruptive of the nation and commerce than just about anything else out there.

And that still doesn't address the wonderfully rich target the security line makes. I witnessed recently at my local airport a line that had easily five hundred people and stretched through the cattle-ropes and back out to the parking garage. That line had almost five times as many people in place as any one aircraft on the tarmac at the time. So why would a terrorist pass up a chance at killing 500 people just to get a chance to kill 100?

TSA apologists like yourself miss one major point in all of your arguments.... Terrorist try to terrorize, nothing more. Airplanes are not the only possible target, and aren't even the best target. Bridges, malls, schools, these are all potential targets for terrorists. The TSA is protecting us from the last attack using methods that are more visual than effective. The TSA is little more than an empty police car parked near the school zone. Casual observers will slow down, but the bad guys know the car is empty.

"That makes no sense. Blowing up a Mall, while physically is a local event, would be more disruptive of the nation and commerce than just about anything else out there."

I'm not following your reasoning here. Did people stop grocery shopping across the country when Gabby Gifford got shot? Or how about Alpine. Didn't people still go see Batman? It's viewed as a local event.

"And that still doesn't address the wonderfully rich target the security line makes. I witnessed recently at my local airport a line that had easily five hundred people and stretched through the cattle-ropes and back out to the parking garage. That line had almost five times as many people in place as any one aircraft on the tarmac at the time. So why would a terrorist pass up a chance at killing 500 people just to get a chance to kill 100?

Because bringing down a plane draws a lot more attention, especially if they can get it past security. It would impact far more than one airport.

"TSA apologists like yourself miss one major point in all of your arguments.... Terrorist try to terrorize, nothing more."

So because I believe in factual arguments I am a TSA apologist? Terrorism is the use of violence for political purposes. It's intention is to shake the confidence people have in their government. A bomb on a plane costs billions, a bomb in a line of passengers doesn't. And those people in line don't expect the government to keep them 100% safe, those on the plane do. So which event has the bigger impact upon your view of your governments' ability to protect you?

Just some food for thought.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 22, 2012 2:11 PM

"As far as training, they probably spend about 10% of their working hours dedicated to training. Show me somewhere else (public or private sector) that invests more time and money in improving the skills of its' workforce than they do."

They need to do a lot of training because the clerks are too dumb to understand the training. They train the clerks that a NEXUS card is an acceptable form of ID and they provide the clerks with a list of acceptable IDs but the clerks frequently don't know what a NEXUS card is. At Terminal 2 I have had clerks ask me not to be difficult. One time I had 4 clerks standing around looking at my NEXUS card; none of them knew what it was. I was at Terminal 2 a couple months ago and presented by NEXUS card. The clerk didn't know what it was and called the supervisor (pretty sure it was Roger Grant - was he fat, loud, and stupid?) He didn't know what it was, refused to look at my phone when I tried to show him, and told me (falsely, I believe) that there was no higher supervisor available.

Sorry, the amount of training the TSA does is irrelevant; what's relevant is that the clerks are a bunch of fat, lazy slobs too dumb to absorbe the training.

Posted by: Mike Toreno
at November 22, 2012 5:20 PM

"A bomb on a plane costs billions, a bomb in a line of passengers doesn't. And those people in line don't expect the government to keep them 100% safe, those on the plane do. So which event has the bigger impact upon your view of your governments' ability to protect you?"

A bomb in a mall, or school, or a nice tall bank building in any major metro would cost billions as well.The destruction of life and property, the reconstruction costs etc.... And as soon as some Terrorist Organization claims responsibility it would get insanely huge media coverage and every politician would crap their pants trying to 'do something to prevent this from ever happening again!' TSA would instantly be expanded to TSSA, transportation and shopping safety administration.

And you point out another flaw in the usual TSA apologists thinking (yes, I am accusing you of being exactly that)... I don't expect the Government to keep me 100% safe. Ever. Anywhere. Not at the airport. Not on the airplane. Not on the train. Not with green eggs and certainly not with Sam I am.

And the fail continues because the TSA is not, can not, and will not ever, provide 100% safety.It is an eight billion dollar a year circus sideshow. I am exponentially more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport than I am likely to die in an air crash. And even the air crash is exponentially more likely to happen than terrorist taking over the plane. I live in Florida and I have a greater chance of dying from a lightening strike then I will ever have of being on a plane sitting next to the next terrorist.

I will ask you one simple question.... all those countries around the world that don't have TSA protecting them, why don't they have airplanes raining out of their skies?

Posted by: Chip
at November 22, 2012 6:38 PM

Amy, did TSA attempt to contact you before TSA's Blogger Bob did the hit and run piece on you?

Posted by: RB
at November 23, 2012 8:01 AM

No. I contacted Nico Melendez, their press rep, asking for answers in order to write about this. He has refused to provide them so far, telling me to contact their complaint line.

Mike Toreno,
I can neither confirm or dispute what you have to say. I wasn't there.

I can tell you that a Canadian ID is not standard to what they see everyday. Passports yes, Canadian NEXUS cards, I would doubt it. They are designed for border agents.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 23, 2012 10:53 PM

Chip,

"A bomb in a mall, or school, or a nice tall bank building in any major metro would cost billions as well.The destruction of life and property, the reconstruction costs etc.... And as soon as some Terrorist Organization claims responsibility it would get insanely huge media coverage and every politician would crap their pants trying to 'do something to prevent this from ever happening again!' TSA would instantly be expanded to TSSA, transportation and shopping safety administration."

Billions? Honestly... Better check your math.

"And you point out another flaw in the usual TSA apologists thinking (yes, I am accusing you of being exactly that)... I don't expect the Government to keep me 100% safe. Ever. Anywhere. Not at the airport. Not on the airplane. Not on the train. Not with green eggs and certainly not with Sam I am."

Good so when you get blown up in a mall you can blame it on terrorists instead of seeking a check from the government. Thank you, I don't want to pay taxes for your demise.

"And the fail continues because the TSA is not, can not, and will not ever, provide 100% safety.It is an eight billion dollar a year circus sideshow. I am exponentially more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport than I am likely to die in an air crash. And even the air crash is exponentially more likely to happen than terrorist taking over the plane. I live in Florida and I have a greater chance of dying from a lightening strike then I will ever have of being on a plane sitting next to the next terrorist."

But you will sue the government for not ensuring the safety of someone you lost. Right? I said nothing about taking over a plane. I said taking down a plane.

With two million people flying in the US a day, it's good odds. And they improve those odds whether you want to give them credit or not.

"I will ask you one simple question.... all those countries around the world that don't have TSA protecting them, why don't they have airplanes raining out of their skies?"

Ummmm how about Kenya, Russia, etc. There are people who do not like us:

"Knowing" knows nothing -- just feels less small if he can come here and attack me entirely without support.

Business Week On TSA: Airport "Security" Is Making Americans Less Safe:

"$100 billion spent and not one risk analysis study," wrote the engineering prof friend of mine who sent me this link from a Charles Kenny piece in Business Week.

I'm posting a blog item on this but I'll also post it here:

In 2010 the National Academy of Science reported the lack of "any Department of Homeland Security risk analysis capabilities and methods that are yet adequate for supporting decision making." DHS (and the TSA in particular) is spending huge bundles of large denomination bills completely blind.

All this spending on airline security is worse than wasteful. Following the official rules while still attempting to show decency toward passengers all but forces TSA employees to delay, embarrass, and inconvenience many thousands every day. Faced with the prospect of such unpleasantries this holiday season, countless Americans will skip the flight to grandma's house and drive instead.

But compare the dangers of air travel with those of driving. To make flying as dangerous as using a car, a four-plane disaster on the scale of 9/11 would have to occur every month, according to analysis published in the American Scientist. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that people switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month--which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day. The Cornell researchers also suggest that enhanced domestic baggage screening reduced passenger volume by about 5 percent in the five years after 9/11, and the substitution of driving for flying by those seeking to avoid security hassles over that period resulted in more than 100 road fatalities.

That’s not to say TSA employees bear responsibility for making the roads more dangerous—they’re just following incentives that reward slavish attention to rules over common sense. ... Instead, the blame lies with politicians, the media, and yes, the traveling public, who will skewer officials over a single fatal plane incident while ignoring car crashes, gun homicides, and even bathtub accidents that kill far more than terrorism does.

...Washington should ask itself why it values the life of an airplane passenger so much more than a bus or train passenger (or the daredevil bath-taker) in terms of the time-wasting, expense, and invasions of privacy it’s willing to tolerate to protect them from harm.

"I can tell you that a Canadian ID is not standard to what they see everyday. Passports yes, Canadian NEXUS cards, I would doubt it. They are designed for border agents."

My NEXUS card isn't Canadian; it's issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And whether any particular form of ID is "standard to what they see everyday" isn't what's important; what's important is whether it is an acceptable form of ID. The clerks are trained to recognize the NEXUS card; it appears on a list of acceptable forms of ID. They are responsible for knowing what it is. But as I said, the clerks are fat, lazy slobs too dumb to absorb the training. The clerks that failed to recognize my NEXUS card failed to do so because he was too lazy and dumb to pay attention to and understand the training he had received. The supervisory clerk (Roger Grant?) failed to recognize my NEXUS card because he is a fat, lazy slob too dumb to pay attention to and understand the training HE had received. He refused to look at my phone, which presented a list of acceptable IDs, because he was lazy and arrogant. He falsely told me there was no higher supervisor available because he was trying to escape accountability for failing to know and carry out the requirements of his job.

Are you a TSA clerk? You are dumb, lazy, and arrogant - too stupid to know that NEXUS cards can be issued by the DHS, too lazy to do any research, and too arrogant to keep quiet about things of which you are ignorant.

Posted by: Mike Toreno
at November 24, 2012 5:12 AM

Sorry, where are my manners....

Ms Alkon, thank you for the wonderful article, I enjoyed it very much. And thank you as well for allowing the conversation to roll out via the comment section.

Then, to Knowing. I am sorry I called you a TSA Apologists. I was wrong. It is obvious you are not an TSA Apologist but are, in fact, an employee of the TSA leaving the only question of are you posting on company time? To wit:

"...good so when you get blown up in a mall you can blame it on terrorists instead of seeking a check from the government. Thank you, I don't want to pay taxes for your demise."

What? How did you manage to jump from aircraft security to not wanting your taxes to go to victims of terrorism?

Deflect much?

And you do realize that the TSA is costing about 8 billion dollars a year, 8 billion of our tax dollars. And as if that isn't enough, the TSA is also charging individual travelers $2.50 per trip for the privilege of going through security.

I am familiar with your comments, Knowing, over on the TSA blog and your ability to use reason isn't any better here or there. The TSA is spending their 8 Billion dollars a year on systems and processes that are not effective. Lets run it out to an illogical end, shall we?

Mr Terrorist wants to stick it to those infidel pigs in America. What to do? Lets take an aircraft and drive it into something important like they did back on September 11. But how am I, a lonely terrorist with limited resources and only one suicide vest, ever going to make it past the crack security teams the TSA has at every airport? Dang it all I guess I'll just have to go home and shake my fists at the Television screaming damn you infidel dogs at the TSA!

Meanwhile millions of adoring Americans are offering thanks and flowers and throwing their underwear and hotel room keys at the Hero's the TSA has on the 'front line' protecting us from Mr. Terrorist.

Or.....

Mr Terrorist looks at the airport and sees the 'enhanced security measures' in place and decides that with a lot less effort he can drive a truck full of explosives right up to the front door of a federal building and do a lot more damage. Kind of like what happened in 1995 in Oklahoma City.

The point I am trying to make with the two stories is there are not as many terrorists out there as the TSA would have us believe. The TSA is not the last best hope of keeping the skies safe, they are not on the front lines, they are simply creating lines.

Posted by: Chip
at November 24, 2012 10:44 AM

I will leave you with one last post.

Regrettably, I allowed the personal attacks from you and your friends to get the better of me. I took offense and reacted offensively. While I wholeheartedly disagree with some of the things you have said and done, I never should have responded in kind. I expect more from myself. For that, I apologize.

My original intention was to educate and dispel some of the falsehoods being stated as fact on your site. I had hoped you would recognize that a vast majority of those people you treat with such disdain are good people who are deserving of respect. Somewhere along the way I lost sight of that goal, just as it appears you have lost sight of your original intentions on this topic.

Too often today, civility gets thrown out the window because we all get wrapped up in trying to "prove" our point. The reality is, if we aren't like-minded to begin with, we only push ourselves further apart and ugliness becomes the norm in our discourse. I see it everywhere today, and one only needs to look at the recent election to see how polarized we have become. We should all be ashamed of our role in that. I know I am.

With that in mind, I'm personally challenging myself to work on solutions to the problems that divide us rather than continue to engage in the nonsensical and unproductive bashing of one another over our beliefs and opinions. I hope you and your friends will take a similar tact. While I know controversy is what sells stories, perhaps there are people out there who are looking for something a bit different. Best of luck.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 24, 2012 2:36 PM

Interesting that you're suddenly regretful and contrite -- only after you've been informed you've been found out.

Your regrets are the regrets of a man trapped.

Guess what: I'm pretty sure I know your name and position, and even the building and very room you work in.

What's really interesting, and unsurprising, is how Keystone Cop-like you've been in in posting here. Is it arrogance or sloppiness or both that led you to leave me your government IP on numerous occasions? (Your IP is also listed in comments under other names, in non-TSA posts on my site, giving up some information about a military background and more.) You prove my points about the sort of people we've got running what pretends to be airport "security" in this country -- "security" costing us billions and finding not a single terrorist in all the time it's been in place.

You rudely attacked me, over and over over again, as not really a journalist -- while you were posting under the name "averageguy," when it seems you are anything but. What it seems you are is a slimy government worker using taxpayer-funded equipment to attack an American citizen for defending the civil liberties that you and your colleagues work so hard to yank away from us. How absolutely scummy.

Proud of yourself?

Oh, and by the way, I will find out who you are and splatter your name far and wide as an example of why Americans are too trusting of their government. Right now, I'm guessing you're one of two people. But, I'm in Paris with my boyfriend and it would be nice if I could run around the town and be all romantic with him instead of having to dig up your identity.

So how about you just spill who you are here in the comments so I can have a vacation with my boyfriend for one week before I get back to waking up at 5am most days to make my column and book deadlines.

So, "Knowing," your name is...

G'wan -- fill in the blank__________________________.

Do it. Tell us your name.

I post in my own full name -- keeps me from saying things on the Internet that I wouldn't say publicly. Now that you've been caught, it's time you showed us the name of the man who had such bravado when he thought he could remain anonymous.

Chip, you have me confused with someone else. I have never posted on the TSA blog, nor am I a TSA blogger.

The opinions I express are mine alone, just as you have yours. Is there a terrorist behind every bush? No. So I get your point. But as we all now, it only takes a few to have a significant impact upon our lives.

Is there a better way to deal with this? Probably. And that's what we have to figure out. Until then, we are where we are. Our borders are porous, we have many who are disenfranchised and susceptible to being pulled to the extreme, and there are groups deliberately moving against us. Whether the threat is big or small, it does exist. I would rather be cautious than knowingly expose my family to unnecessary risks.

So I think the question is, what level of risk are we willing to accept? We all know zero risk is impossible to achieve, and close to it would be unbearable.

If we are to invest, we know a higher risk can result in a much greater return (or in this case savings on security costs) but in reality it is much more likely we would suffer a great loss instead of reap those potential rewards.

While an act like 911 won't likely occur due to the hardened cockpit doors TSA made the airlines install, the cost of a downed plane and it's impact on transportation and the economy would still be great.

Note, just the loss in air traffic revenue was $10 billion alone. $100 million for a plane. How much for 100 lives? Insurance costs, legal expenses, property damage, cleanup, and on and on. There is a lot to consider.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 24, 2012 3:35 PM

"Knowing" knows nothing -- just feels less small if he can come here and attack me entirely without support.

Exactly right.

I work in an airport, "Knowing". I know all of the rank and file TSA folks there. Yes, they get training. So do McDonald's fry cooks. The only thing the majority of them brought to the job was a heartbeat. Which is not to denigrate them, just to say that there's not much in the way of qualifications required. When you don't need any skills to get hired, you're an unskilled worker. These are not the best and brightest, these are the people who put in applications and passed background checks.

Posted by: Pablo
at November 24, 2012 3:47 PM

Your name? Your job description at DHS?

I post under my own full name -- here and when I comment elsewhere. It's an integrity thing. I only say things that I would be comfortable having people know came from me. It's easier to be sneaky, demeaning, and underhanded if you think you can attack people anonymously.

Oh, and how entirely scummy that your rudeness has dialed down about 10 notches now that you've been told I'm on to you.

Sorry but this blogger lady is clearly retarded. Thou shalt not bare false witness. If you are going to go to hell it should be for at least millions of dollars not for this shack of a blog.
Edit | Reply
(Commenter name given) Super Saijan Goku
Advice Goddess Blog
How Orwellian Are We? TSA...
4 days ago
216.81.81.85

Amy,
I am serious about what I said. I didn't apologize out of contrition -- because I didn't have to say anything as I know you will pursue me anyway. I did it out of remorse for my role in a lowly discourse. I hold myself to higher standards than the personal behavior I displayed. In letting those standards slip, I let myself down.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted by: Knowing
at November 24, 2012 4:23 PM

You only noticed your standards had slipped (after a constant string of attacks on me) when I posted your DHS IP.

Come on, don't take the coward's way out. Tell us your name.

You posted all sorts of stuff about what a substandard journalist I am, railing about how dishonest *I* supposedly am, and all sorts of other nasty stuff about me -- while using the email moniker "averageguy." You're a government-employed person, using government equipment to attack an American citizen, pretending all the while that you're just any commenter.

Did you really need to come to some big realization that this is scummy behavior? If so, is that because scummy behavior is status quo for you?

You've been making these attacks for a long time on my site -- since September 17 of 2011. You had oodles and oodles of time to decide it was wrong to do so, and stop. Or, find your way to integrity and admit what you were doing and apologize.

Again, your contrition was only squeeezed out of you because I told you I was onto you -- as a DHS employee going after an American citizen via government equipment. And that I think I know you are down to the building and room number you work in. (Staff directories are so helpful for substandard journalists such as myself.)

And let's get real here: You didn't post in your own name because then you couldn't have used all the low blows about me.

Oh, and while we're at it, did you leave the other comments from all the DHS addresses I've now dug up nasty comments from on my site, or do you have co-workers as determined as you are to attack a woman who fights for our civil liberties? (It seems clearer than ever that the TSA and DHS are enemies of civil liberties -- as I wrote here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tsa-335352-agent-rights.html )

What a terrible person you are. You get, but do not deserve, the protections of the Constitution because you behave like a man in power in a Banana Republic.

Jim P. said you were probably posting from an aircard (making it look like your comments were coming from a Juneau IP), and then I told you I had two IPs from your name, both with variations on the "averageguy" email address, which only I can see.

Come on, man up and come out with your name.

Do you really need a shoddy journalist like me to pull it out of somebody?

That's the weenie's way -- but then again, you're a guy who drops anonymous turds on a website, so no surprise that you're incapable of manning up.

is a short list of popular threads from the last thirty days. The attack on Amy is not listed in that group. So what I need for anyone interested to do is to increase the page views of the Amy thread. You can find the article here:

This "Knowing" entity is a complete fucking asshat - must be Blogger Bobs' Arse Puppet. You Americans are the laughing stock of the free world for letting your government fuck you so hard by people that don't qualify for a job at Wallmart. Bloody shame used to be a nice place. More power to you Amy, and keep fighting the good fight - and wonderful rack by the way.

Posted by: Laughing from North of 74
at December 4, 2012 6:46 PM

@Knowing "Canadian NEXUS cards"

Nexus cards are a joint US-Canadian solution to meet the needs of frequent travelers. Any TSA agent that does not recognize it is completely and irredeemably incompetent, as is the gold standard. Your ignorance of that fact proves that you are nothing but a mouthpiece for the TSA. What a moron.